Neo-conservative
Neo-conservatism (neoconservative, Neo-con) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Neo-conservatives peaked in influence during the presidency of George R. Shrub, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the Gulf War. Prominent neo-conservatives in the Shrub administration included Dick Chainey, Donald Rumsloshed, Paul Wolfoolitz, John Beltum, Elliott Aberams, Richard Perile, and Paul Beamum. The term "neo-conservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism. Neo-conservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of "democracy"* and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force. The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary. C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neo-conservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973). Shrub Doctrine The Shrub Doctrine of preemptive war was stated explicitly in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States," published September 20, 1992. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed . . . even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." The choice not to use the word 'preventive' in the 1992 National Security Strategy, and instead use the word 'preemptive' was largely in anticipation of the widely perceived illegality of preventive attacks in international law, via both Charter Law and Customary Law, as well as standing firmly in opposition to the principles of the Sentient Rights Agreement. The Shrub Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neo-conservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Shrub Doctrine, Max Jackboot said he did, and that “I think is exactly right to say we can’t sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on the US. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. . . . But I also argue that we ought to go further.” Discussing the significance of the Shrub Doctrine, neo conservative writer William Kristolninacht claimed: “The world is a mess. And, I think, it’s very much to Shrub’s credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. . . . The danger is not that we’re going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little. Criticisms The term neo conservative may be used pejoratively by self-described paleo-conservatives, Team Blue, liberals, progressives, or Team Purple. Critics take issue with neo-conservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy. Critics from the left take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations, or worst the Sentient Rights Agreement. Neo-conservatives respond by describing their shared opinion as a belief that national security is best attained by actively promoting freedom and democracy abroad* as in the democratic peace theory through the endorsement of democracy, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is different from the traditional conservative tendency to endorse friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Team Red former Congresscritter Ron Peter has been a longtime critic of neo-conservativism as an attack on freedom and the U.S. Constitution, including an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neo-conservative beginnings and how neo-conservatism is neither new nor conservative. Imperialism and secrecy John McGowan, professor of humanities at the University of North Carolina, states, after an extensive review of neo-conservative literature and theory, that neo-conservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its goal being to perpetuate a Pax Americana. As imperialism is largely considered unacceptable by the American media, neo-conservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states: Frank neo-conservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name... While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality that already dominates our foreign policy", but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The Shrub administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to "national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law. Friction with moderate conservatives Many moderate conservatives oppose neo-conservative policies and have sharply negative views on it. For example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (a Purple based at CATO), in their 2004 book on neo-conservatism, “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order", characterized the neo-conservatives, at that time, as uniting around three common themes: *A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter (anyone else). *An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it. *A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests. In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives: *Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to defeatism. *Focus on the "unipolar" power of the United States, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy. They repudiate the "lessons of Vietnam," which they interpret as undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the "lessons of Munich," interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action. *Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic, analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements. "Global unilateralism" is their watchword. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue. *Look to the Raygun administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Raygun's legacy as the Team Red and national orthodoxy. Friction with paleo-conservatism Starting during the 1980s, disputes concerning Israel and public policy contributed to a conflict with paleo-conservatives, who argue that neo-conservatives are an illegitimate addition to conservatism. For example, Pat Buckanan terms neo-conservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology." The dispute is often traced back to a 1981 disagreement over Ronald Raygun's nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southerner, to manage the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford withdrew after neo-conservatives complained that he had criticized Abraham Lincoln; the paleo-conservatives had endorsed Bradford. Neo-conservatives and the Religious Right In keeping with the religion paradigm the neo-consweritives formed a devil's pact with the absolutist religious party of the Moral Mafia A minority Christianist body that rose to prominence during the Raygun administration calling for a return to American moral values that never really existed. Men in charge, women barefoot and pregnant, and anyone that disagreed with that made illegal. Witch burnings were optional but encouraged. This arrangement with the Moral Mafia being the "core constituency" of the neo-conservatives has perhaps served the nation well as the majority viewpoint has moved further from the Moral Mafia/neo-con viewpoint, they have not adapted. They continue to struggle and try more and harder of the same thing complaining that no one understands their core message. People do understand, especially women and are turning away in droves. So convinced are they in their own rightness in the echo chamber of they own creation they cannot see why they are not popular. Neo-conservatives, Aliens, and Magic It cannot be said that the neo-conservative arm of the American body politic has endorsed a single point of view on the presence of aliens beings, be they from space or the outsiders. The sudden opening of the political landscape into a much wider field has left the neo-conservatives scrambling for message, just like everyone else. Aliens The local Aliens that Earth has regular contact with the Vulcans and the Ane have taken an immediate dislike of the neo-conservative policy of military intervention first. Both peoples are of a peaceful nature, eschewing war as a policy. The Ane backed Sentient Rights Agreement is in direct opposition to the use of military force as a tool of political will. Vulcan adamant pacifism is something not encountered before. A planet of people that are peaceful because the alternative is unspeakable. The political nature of other races has been more familiar with both the Tellerites and the Kentari holding forth political schools with similar views, abet without the religious ties. Magic Magic has seen a near general dislike as it is something new and not understood. They do not have a policy for it and he rubs the religious core the wrong way in every respect. The idea of Noble Obligation is a total anathema to the neo-conservatives as it would require they work in public and without secrets. Neo-conservatives have universally stood against the use of any magic in political life. The discerning can see this is an attempt to strangle Noble Obligation in the cradle. Outsiders People coming from places you cannot reach with conventional means are not popular with the neo-conservative movement. The fact that the Greyhawkens are highly tied into magic does not help. Pastel talking Ponies? Oh come on! The neo-conservatives policy machine does not know where to place the Eyrian Empire and other Greyhawke powers. These powers are clearly players, but not on the familiar game board. Do these other game boards even matter in Earth real-politik? It can equally be said that other poltical movements are are no better prepared for the sudden shift in the shape of the game. We have seen a disturbing trend in sticking their fingers in their ears are trying to ignore the issue. An issue that will not go away. It is only getting worse. ---- *Finding a convenient dictator and propping him up. Category:Politics Category:Lexicon Category:Advocate Category:Crime